Hormone Controversy

[7Wannabe5]

Once again I am caused to suffer for making ill use of science in order to justify my weak self-interest. I came upon this article while searching for exercise tips for hour-glass figures. I thought it was interesting that it was written by somebody who affiliates as introverted and anarchist.

http://www.returnofkings.com/27951/why- ... g-attacked

[EMJ]

Once again I am caused to suffer for making ill use of science in order to justify my weak self-interest. I came upon this article while searching for exercise tips for hour-glass figures. I thought it was interesting that it was written by somebody who affiliates as introverted and anarchist.

http://www.returnofkings.com/27951/why- ... g-attacked

Return Of Kings is a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. ... Women and homosexuals are strongly discouraged from commenting here.

[7Wannabe5]

@EMJ: Yup. I have now added the neo-masculinity movement to my list of reasons why it is not yet safe to be post-feminist. The funny thing is that I agree with quite a few of the author's points, but none of his conclusions. I belonged to a forum of people who were stuck in sex-dead marriages and lack of overt sexual dichotomy was one of the problems we discussed. There are books written as long ago as the 1920s on the theme of most-of-the-American-men-of-today-are-wimpy-nice-guys-don't-you-be-one-of-them. Dr. Laura's "The Care and Feeding of Husbands" is a near plagiarism of Helen Andelin's "Fascinating Womanhood" which is near plagiarism of a work written in 1922 on the theme of being a gentle, feminine girl rather than a wild, roaring flapper.

The posture of the author of the article and/or the demand statement of the neo-masculinity movement amounts to something like here is some new scientific evidence that proves that we should go back to behaving more like creatures without advanced brain function necessary to move forward with both body of knowledge A (capabilities of women given economic freedom and opportunity) and body of knowledge B (science of hormones/gender-development/sexual arousal/functioning.) As if somebody like me, who currently self-describes as free-agent/post-feminist/femme/submissive/poly-amorous/intelligent ADULT is not capable of grinning at one of her lovers and saying "Bravo!" after he throws her on a counter-top and then discussing a shared political interest over tea the next morning, or enjoying being told that she looks like a box of candy and assured of his warm affection by her other lover before agreeing to help beta-test some changes to his website over dinner, does not and can not exist. Truth be told, I am not infrequently tempted to throw out the baby with the bathwater myself because complexity is so freaking hard. But, the reason that I don't is that stupidity is harder and ultimately a lot less fun

[SilverElephant]

As if somebody like me, who currently self-describes as free-agent/post-feminist/femme/submissive/poly-amorous/intelligent ADULT is not capable of grinning at one of her lovers and saying "Bravo!" after he throws her on a counter-top and then discussing a shared political interest over tea the next morning, or enjoying being told that she looks like a box of candy and assured of his warm affection by her other lover before agreeing to help beta-test some changes to his website over dinner, does not and can not exist. Truth be told, I am not infrequently tempted to throw out the baby with the bathwater myself because complexity is so freaking hard. But, the reason that I don't is that stupidity is harder and ultimately a lot less fun

Though I have to ask, how many women can deal with, or even want, the type of man you describe? Consider that the man you're describing is erudite, engaged, manly, assertive, an intellectual, etc... Many a woman would dismiss this intellectual side (what,you don't have a car? What's a savings rate?) Typically, these men will seek out the kind of woman you're describing. What I'm saying that both types are rare, and the men in your generation have a different conditioning vis-a-vis this topic to begin with. The number of women I know that I could discuss the kind of topics we discuss here is very, very low.

I feel that what you're describing is more a type of person with a certain type of mind than a type of woman. My girlfriend fits your description rather well, but I had a devil of a time finding a woman like her.

[7Wannabe5]

SilverElephant said: I feel that what you're describing is more a type of person with a certain type of mind than a type of woman. My girlfriend fits your description rather well, but I had a devil of a time finding a woman like her.

Good point. My youngest sister (spoiled thing) once said "When the most attractive men become bored with the beautiful women, that's when they look for me." Might have to do with the fact that there are more very high IQ men than women. I think that sometimes even men who don't find me at all their cup of cake are happy to buy me dinner just for the conversation.

I wanted to add for the record that I think there can be as much complexity to be explored in a monogamous relationship or the self-aware choice of celibacy as in polyamorous practice. It's mostly a matter of where you are currently focusing your perspective. Roughly analogous to how the microbiome of your gut is as complex as a forest system. I was just being overly enthusiastic about polyamory when I first adopted the practice because I am overly enthusiastic about almost everything when I first try it. Curse of the ENTP.

[GandK]

The funny thing is that I agree with quite a few of the author's points, but none of his conclusions.

Me too.

I 100% agree re post-feminism. It's really uncomfortable for me to talk about non-physiological male and female differences with our kids. Society, including me, is not comfortable saying out loud at present that men and women are different enough that they should be treated differently as a rule. And I feel hamstrung sometimes as a parent... my job is to prepare my kids to operate with excellence in the world as it exists. That includes navigating both actual reality and the public delusions we all call "reality," and understanding the differences between the two. Which system to use when, though? Ick.

Also, re "more very high IQ men than women," yes. My observation is that there are more men at both ends of pretty much every Bell curve that exists. Which ties in with the above. But it's not PC to say that the ten smartest people I know are all male, or that the ten stupidest people I know are all male, or the ten most violent, or the ten most peaceful, etc.. Either we're not supposed to notice that sort of thing as "modern women," or we're not allowed to comment on it if we do.

[7Wannabe5]

@GandK: I would say that we are likely very close to being in agreement except instead of saying that "men and women are different enough that they should be treated differently as a rule", I would say something more like "men and woman are different enough that you may wish to consider whether you may or may not want to choose to treat them differently because you may or may not find that to be in alignment with your own self-aware self-interest." Also, personality, cultural upbringing, experience, phase-of-life are very important additional factors to consider. For instance, I wouldn't expect a 16 year old girl to be able to own, inhabit, appreciate and then transcend the feeling of post-coital tristesse the way that I can, or a 14 year old boy to be able to recognize the way the hard-link between his visual cortex and emotional centers might render him vulnerable to a "pretty face" the way one of my mature lovers might. One of the problems with dating at mid-life is that so many of us have had so many different experiences and have habituated so many different behaviors. For instance, I sometimes have to remind myself not to exhibit "wife" behaviors and the men often have the same problem, especially when you find yourselves doing something like grocery shopping together -lol Just the other evening I reflexively offered a man food off of my plate on a first date, and then my internal dialogue was like "Damn, I didn't mean to signal that. Can I have a take back?"

[Ego]

For a dozen generations we in the west have considered women the weaker sex and have treated them as such. Is it possible that the desirability of the hourglass figure is a consequence of this cultural programming?

Our culture has changed very quickly. Our diet and drug habits, which have a massive influence on hormones, have changed even quicker. As our cultural programming and our biological programming have changed, so too has the definition of desirable.

Also, the breadth of our cultural net is expanding. A woman who lives in Manhattan may consider herself a Japanophile and be more influenced by Japanese culture than the culture of the neighborhood where she grew up in Queens. A girl growing up in Karachi may admire and know more about the Brazilian footballer Marta than she does her own grandmother.

If that girl in Karachi loves to play soccer and that makes her look more like Marta than her grandmother, is that a bad thing? Her grandmother may not like it. But she and her grandmother will have very different life experiences. What is the best way to equip that girl to deal with the world she will live in? Should she cling to her grandmother's traditions, which in many ways allow women to be used as the tools of men, or should she be permitted to find the model that works in the world that is coming?

The world is changing fast. What is the best way to deal with a fast-changing environment?

[7Wannabe5]

@Ego: You make some good points, but I don't think the desirability of the hourglass figure is due to recent (dozen generations) human cultural programming. The science does seem to indicate some link to storage of fat and estrogen supplies that are beneficial to infant during pregnancy and breastfeeding. However, I absolutely agree that any modern young woman who isn't currently interested in having a baby should make whatever choices would best serve her own self-interest. Of course, the likelihood that a young woman, no matter how fit, will be able to make her way to independence through a career as a soccer player are pretty slim. In fact, it could be argued that in today's world a woman who is as fit as Marta is displaying her achievement of affluence/status/leisure as much as an indolent odalisque or houseproud homemaker with brand new automatic washing machine of some earlier era. Most women have neither the leisure nor interest to devote themselves full time to physical fitness/health/appearance/fashion/Zone00. If your passion/purpose is soccer and you are a beautiful woman to begin with (big eyes, symmetric features, great smile etc.) then you may end up looking like Marta. If your passion/purpose is jazz clarinet composition, you enjoy yoga, and your ethnic heritage is Chinese, you will likely look different functioning at your own personal best. If your passion/purpose is books and gardening, you enjoy tap dancing and swimming, and your ethnic heritage is half Slavic, half Anglo, you will also look different functioning at your own personal best. Etc. etc. etc.

Anyways, one point we would likely agree on is that there must be a serious lack of anything resembling personal best functioning among my peers in my region since I regularly receive dating inquiries from men in much better state of fitness (if not health) than me. One thing you may not agree with, but I assure you is true, is that when I am at my personal best, I still have an endomorphic hourglass figure. When I was a 5'9" 132 lb. 14 year old who attempted to run track and play volleyball in spite of severe asthma (magically lost most of my allergies around age 35) and the song "Brickhouse" came on at the ice skating rink, somebody would yell out "Hey, it's your song! ha-ha-ha" at me, and I still have to deal with 7th grade boys pulling out t-shirt tents in my direction, the only difference is that now I can frown and say "Show some respect. I'm old enough to be your grandmother."

[Ego]

@Ego: You make some good points, but I don't think the desirability of the hourglass figure is due to recent (dozen generations) human cultural programming.

Cultural and biological programming.

John Calhoun created rodent utopias that eventually became overpopulated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM

In the exploit phase of the experiment the rodents became hyper-sexual. In the equilibrium phase they became homosexual then asexual. In the decline phase they became infertile.

Is it possible that we are witnessing the shift from exploit to equilibrium or equilibrium to decline? Might our generation be the last of the exploiters or equilibriums?

[7Wannabe5]

@Ego: Interesting and depressing theory. I think it is possible that population stress could have some sort of similar effect on human reproductive function, but it would likely be very different since the sexuality of humans is so different from that of rodents. Mice are inbreeders, go into and out of heat, may spontaneously abort if exposed to smell of more alpha male, deposit waxy plug after coitus to seal female off from competition, etc. etc. So, to begin with a similar experiment using humans would fail almost immediately because humans have the urge to out breed and human stock will very quickly decline if this doesn't happen. For instance, children in Israel who were raised in the same large communal nursery from infancy did not tend towards mating even though they were not genetically related. Human females are potentially constantly sexually receptive, and there is no evidence to support spontaneous abortion after smelling more alpha potential mate. And the only tool human males have in direct sexual competition with other males is 3-D shovel mechanics, although, of course, the sperm themselves fight it out at another level.

Also, there are two kinds of androgyny in human sexuality. The most hyper-sexual humans are the ones most likely to be bi-sexual and they are often judged to be sexually attractive. For instance, Mick Jagger or Annie Lennox. But, then there are people who have an asexual androgyny which is often judged to be unattractive, like the Pat character from Saturday Night Live. So, stress causes a rise in cortisol and cortisol causes a rise in central body fat and central body fat causes a rise in generally judged to be unattractively sexually neutral or neutered appearance. Low estrogen combined with low testosterone in a female will have a similar effect, whereas high estrogen combined with low testosterone will have that effect on a male. Low estrogen with high testosterone in a female actually leads to the very large breast, very narrow hip body type of a Barbie doll. Women with this hormonal profile have difficulty conceiving but are often hyper-sexual. Hyper-sexuality in females can also be caused by high testosterone sensitivity or hyper-activity of the dopaminergic mesolimbic pathway which are not unrelated. IOW, it is very complex.

[7Wannabe5]

Human beings are very intelligent, highly adaptable creatures who have developed more than one, two or a million strategies for successfully addressing issues related to food, sexuality and other resources. Any argument based on what should be natural for us in any of these matters is doomed due to lack of adequate address of complexity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrGw_cOgwa8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GBT37_yyzY

My ex-football player lover who threw my on the counter top loves Prince and has Edith Piaf at the top of his playlist. I would rather be Ingrid Michaelson than the tall blonde in the pink dress, well, most of the time...I won't be boxed in by anybody's theory of what I should think or feel or how I should behave.